Environmental Educator?

I recently read an article in a local paper regarding, ‘environmental educators teaching fear, not facts.’ The author seemed to trivialize the damage and potential damage to the planet and its inhabitants resulting from the way we live. This author was particularly hard on people who are teaching children about environmental problems, claiming it’s just causing unnecessary stress. Well, I didn’t agree with most of what the author wrote. In fact I believe the author’s attitude toward environmental problems and environmental education has much to do with many of the problems which we and posterity face.

Personally, I’m frustrated and irritated with the constant stream of exaggerations and lies fed to us in the interest of maintaining the status-quo or making money. Our brains are conditioned through a lifetime blitz of advertising and education designed to create a consumer mentality and then our bodies are used to test products. We must realize our planet is now a huge uncontrolled experiment which may someday reveal just how much greed, suffering, pollution and crowding can be tolerated before total rebellion or total demise.

Referring to the article; I do agree with one thing I read at its beginning. We don’t need to teach very young children about deforestation and global warming, but I think we should teach them the importance of keeping their immediate environment clean. Children pass by my house daily going to and from school and I notice some of them demonstrate a total lack of regard for the environment as they throw their garbage on the ground. By the time a child is ten or twelve years of age they could be sufficiently involved in environmental issues to allow them to be aware and open minded to the concept of ‘environmental stewardship’ as they continue their education.

They absolutely should be learning about ways of living on this planet which aren’t centered on producing, selling and buying everything that can be thought of. Children need to be introduced to a concept which is radically different because they will not get away with digging up the natural resources, producing products, selling them and then burying them in large dumps in the planets landscape as we have done for the last century. In fact they may have to dig up landfill sites just to have raw materials.

We need to learn, ‘just because we can, doesn’t mean we should’.

Consider what Europe and the U.S. did to the environment; the water, the air and other natural resources with a few hundred million people in a century. What do you think will happen now that countries like China and India are serious producers with many, many more people, modern production capacity and the U.S. and European shopping complexes as outlets for their products? Think of what would happen to the U.S. if China decided to boycott our country.

The author mentions we came from a time when things like replanting forests was a losing proposition. Well this is another example of poor judgment and faulty decision-making. Unfortunately the same mentality exists today, and we continue to grow and produce without regard to the real costs to health, to the environment and to posterity. Much of what we do today produces side effects which are problems for us and will be problems for posterity.

Another of the comments in this article was adults were condemned for having jobs as loggers and for driving cars. Well, these aren’t without fault. Personally, I drive a pickup. I am an independent contractor and I must carry tools and supplies. I will choose an alternative or improvement when it is available and affordable. At this point there is little choice for me. And until we, as a society, insist we have better choices, nothing is going to improve. But, I don’t expect to see that happen as I think we have gone backwards in the last few decades. All you have to do is look at the size of the vehicles which are on the road as you drive around.

As far as logging is concerned, if the forests are being cut down at a faster rate than they are grown, then there is a problem with the logging industry. When shellfish were being harvested at too fast a rate, it became necessary to limit or prohibit the removal of shellfish on the West Coast, because that particular fishery was in danger. The people that made money diving for these were harmed by this decision, but if the alternative is to allow this fishery to be depleted, what choice is there? I suggest it is necessary for the good of society and the planet to have checks and balances. I think most people understand and agree with this.

I think a lot of people find some comfort in believing the myriad bureaucracies across the nation are on top of everything and taking care of us. That they are full of well meaning, intelligent people who spend their time and our money doing what is best for society. There may be some well-meaning people and there may be some intelligent people, but whether the best is being done for society is questionable in my mind.

In this same article there is reference to global warming, species extinction, deforestation, acid rain, and toxic waste. In my opinion, if global warming causes the oceans to rise 6 inches or 60 inches, it concerns me. If there’s a hole in the ozone over Antarctica that’s the size of Australia or the size of Austria, it concerns me. And when scientists experiment with and tamper with the food which I buy for my wife or my grandchildren it scares me—a lot! They may convince some that they want to make better food and more of it, but I don’t accept that. Food is being thrown away in alarming quantities. It is about the corporations making more and more money, and having more control. They make seeds which produce plants which are resistant to their brand of pesticide so farmers can buy and spray as much pesticide as they want. And then when it’s time to plant the next crop the farmers may have to go back to these large corporations to buy their seeds because of engineered terminator seeds. These are seeds that produce plants which produce seeds which will not germinate, so you have to go back and buy new seeds because you can’t use any seeds from your crops.

Regarding species extinction, I have read that somewhere around 137 species become extinct every day. And it has also been stated that some scientists anticipate the extinction of half the species on the planet in the next 100 years if the current rate of extinction persists. It has been stated that in the same period of time the planet will be completely deforested at the current rate of deforestation. The EPA has reported that 70 percent of our rivers and estuaries are polluted beyond reasonable or safe levels. And I have heard on the news the beaches in southern California, where I used to swim, have been posted at times warning against swimming because of pollution. And with regard to toxins, it is now known that we carry approximately 250 chemicals in our bodies which don’t belong there, and this may be causing problems we are not yet capable of connecting cause to effect.

I know there are always those who think there is going to be some revolutionary breakthrough in science and everything will be okay. I haven’t noticed it! In the late 1700’s they were doing mastectomies when a lump was detected and that is what they do now. In the late 1800’s they were driving cars with gasoline burning engines, the same thing exists today. Houses are still being built a stick at a time, using similar materials. Dentists are still drilling holes and packing them with potentially harmful materials. Kids are still being taught the 3 R’s and learning that sports are more important than art. This list could go on.

A couple years ago I was listening to a radio reporter on location at one of the well-known local rivers. The area was posted, warning against swimming because of pollution. He was interviewing adults as they arrived and I thought the statements these parents made were criminal. The parents were telling the reporter they had driven there, it was hot and they were taking their children into the water. I want to emphasize here, people knowingly subject their children to unnecessary risks; and it’s not just polluted rivers I’m referring to. Some of it may be because we’re not told the truth about the effects of toxins, so people don’t take the warnings seriously, as in this example.

Consider the contrast, the author of the article on the environment comments, ‘gloom and anxiety from the messages young children receive regarding the environment often overshadow the facts’. I wonder which is more harmful, the anxiety or the toxins in the river? It’s interesting to me that people can see the same world so differently… difference in perception because of difference in purpose!

In the article there was reference to a concerned parent saying their child is becoming more convinced humans and technology are bad for the planet. I personally think this child is on to something. If humans and technology are good for the planet, I would like to know in what ways. Some think it’s a wonderful world and a wonderful life. These things are easy to say when you’re lucky enough to be in a good place at a good time, but you don’t have to look very far at all to find disease, misery, war, corruption and pain. You just have to be aware. And it only takes a moment for a person’s life to change in such a way as to have first hand experience with how cruel life can be. How is this relevant? If we accept the pollution of our environment as part of life, and in turn accept the pollution of our bodies and minds as inevitable, then we accept the probable result; the limiting of our capacity to think clearly, to choose wisely and to live a healthy and happy life.

Also in the article is a reference to population growth rate declining since the 1960’s. It goes on to say that most demographers expect the world population to level in about 50 years. This appears to me somewhat misleading. Actually, the growth rate has decreased slightly, but that is a misleading point in the context of that article. If you check you will find the increasing population offsets the small decrease in rate and we end up with actual increases in population that have been fairly consistent recently, somewhere around 80 million every year. Fact is, according to the U.S. Census Bureau; the world population in 1950 was around 2.5 billion. In the year 2000 it was around 6.0 billion and it is forecast that by 2050 the world population will be 9.1 billion. I think it’s much more significant that the population is increasing every year by a quantity that will completely repopulate the entire United States in less than five year intervals, than the fact the rate of increase is decreasing in tenths of a percent. Another way of considering this level of population growth is during the first half of this century we will add to the world population approximately 11 times more than the population of the U.S. We are having problems now; what will it be like then? The fact the author of the article even mentioned the growth rate is decreasing, in light of the fact that population is still increasing, just shows how people can and will attempt to deceive.

Further into the article there is a phrase, ‘young people receive images of severe deforestation in the United States.’ I’ve seen and heard of areas in the West where I was told that logging had eliminated the forest. Let’s assume for the moment that the forests are managed better in the U.S. today. This is only a piece of the picture as the U.S. is only one place on the planet that has forests. I understand the forests which contain the majority of species of wildlife, up to 50 percent, are not in the U.S. but are in the tropical regions of the planet. The information I have read indicates that these areas are being deforested at unbelievable rates, 1 acre per second, if you can even begin to imagine that. And most of the cleared forestland is to grow feed to produce animals for the more affluent countries to eat. Just another problem as the large-scale production of animals is another example of poor decision making—because, from this we get water and air pollution, land degradation and disease.

Another comment in the article was others have implied that cutting down trees to build houses is a waste of a resource. My reaction is—sometimes it is. My parents raised 5 children in a 1200 square foot home. Now I see retired couples buying 3000 to 5000 square foot homes, with doors that are 8 feet tall. I don’t necessarily think using wood to build homes has to be a waste of resources, wood is a renewable resource, but I do consider cutting down trees to build excessively is wasteful.

There are problems in the world…real problems! Acting and talking like they are not here will not make them go away. I don’t understand what is to be accomplished by not telling it like it is. What is to be gained by trying to make all of these issues seem trivial and trying to keep them out of textbooks? Perhaps if we were informed and understood the problems and the possible solutions, we could all work toward improving life for ourselves and our children. I would hope the average person would want to help if they had an accurate understanding of the condition of our society, our country and the planet. But after reading the article I can understand why so many people think everything is okay.

As a rule I haven’t noticed the government bureaucracies looking for and identifying potential problems and then taking steps to fix them before they become catastrophic. It is the preferred posture to keep us slightly in the dark. It is apparent to me that when things get done in this country to benefit its citizens, it’s because people became alarmed. If people become sufficiently alarmed they begin to pull together and things begin to happen. People do this! Informed, concerned, ordinary people! Not bureaucracies! It is therefore important that we know the truth. It is important we learn about the problems and the solutions.

After watching a documentary on the sinking of the Titanic I began to think about the similarities between that tragedy and the tragic situation I think the human race is in now. I think about how things are changing and seem to be slowly getting worse and how I believe that it will continue to do so until reaching a critical point, possibly of no return. But somehow, as a society, we seem to just keep ignoring the signs and go about our daily activities as if everything is fine. The author of the article which prompted me to write this commentary is a fine example of a member of society in denial.

The interesting thing about change is that if it’s slow enough it will be tolerated; even when it’s objectionable. I have been told that if you put a frog into a pot of water and then heat it, the frog will stay in the pot and die. But if you drop a frog into a pot of very hot water it will jump out immediately.

The similarities in the tragedy of the Titanic and the tragedy of the human race are striking, in my opinion. According to people that have studied the records and have heard the stories of some of the survivors, the Titanic was apparently perceived to be unsinkable. It appears to me that most people today seem to believe, or at least live like they believe, that the human race, the United States of America and the planet Earth are, likewise, indestructible.

It is claimed, while the Titanic was taking on water, some people went back into their cabins to read a book or to get into bed. Some people were angered when the ship’s crew came to their cabins to tell them they needed to go to the upper decks for their own safety. Imagine a vessel almost a thousand feet long with the bow now under water because of flooding in the front compartments and the stern and propellers several stories out of the water. Picture hundreds of people hanging on to the stern rails as the angle of the ship increased toward the bottom of the ocean. It has been suggested the people on board were fairly comfortable with the idea the crew would fix the problem and they could go back to bed or another ship would arrive and save them. The ship’s band assembled on the stern deck and played. These people were clearly not accepting the fact they were in grave danger. In fact, one of the survivors commented many years after, that it wasn’t until she was in a lifeboat viewing from a distance, that she even considered it was possible the ship would sink. She had to see what was happening from another perspective before she could see the reality.

I think it’s worth noting the inability of these people to accept what was happening, and the calm confidence which seemed to pervade this scene. This unwarranted confidence was also deeply embedded in the public at large—everyone was deluded. Whether in the person of a crew member, a passenger or those on other ships or land who were informed via telegraph; the disbelief was pervasive.

A lot of people died that probably should not have, and  we should also note that the underlying contributing factors and the responses by everyone touched by this tragedy are present in our current situation, that of the passengers on the planet Earth.

Some of the contributing factors in the tragedy of the Titanic and the tragedy of our country have to do with poor decision making and apathy, and the ever-present problem of people being confident in the claims of others, even when the claims are unsubstantiated. Also, when the truth is known it may not be disseminated properly or perhaps not at all, sometimes trying to avoid panic. And if it is shared, people may not take it seriously or may not do anything about it anyway. And finally, the influence of ego and greed were present then, on the Titanic, as they are now. And these were the same destructive forces then as they are now. These are some of the underlying factors that cost many people their lives then as they do now and will continue to do so in the future.

The responses then and now included the human tendency to dismiss evidence if it conflicts with one’s beliefs. On the Titanic there was a slowness of the crew and passengers to respond to the seriousness of their situation. This was in part because they were not being told the truth; they were not being told how critical their situation was. And because they had heard and believed the ship was unsinkable, any evidence to the contrary was very difficult to accept. It seems that they, like us, were poorly informed. And they, like us, were willing to place unwarranted faith and confidence in others and other things, especially when it coincides with one’s beliefs. Therefore, as their lives were coming to an end they may have believed up to the last moments that everything was going to be okay. For many of them, it wasn’t! Humans want to believe that things are going to be okay, no matter what!

The article stated children become alarmed about toxic waste, deforestation, acid rain and global warming without learning the basic scientific facts about these complex issues. There is no doubt educators should use different models for creating awareness in a ten year old versus a sixteen year old student. But these are problems that do and will affect all of us so we should all learn about them in ways that are appropriate to age.

It appears that new science, at times, makes old science obsolete, sometimes making it appear incredibly humorous and sometimes incredibly stupid. It’s interesting that each generation thinks they are living in the age of enlightenment. But, in times gone by people were killed for espousing opinions contrary to the contemporary thinking. Bruno was burned at the stake for his perceived heresies; one of them being that he believed the Earth is not the center of the solar system. Newton thought comets re-supplied the sun with energy so it could continue to provide heat and light. George Washington was bled to death by the doctors who were treating him for a cold. I suspect his family had every confidence the doctors knew the truths of their science. Science told us the universe was static, it apparently isn’t according to newer science. In the century in which I grew up it was scientific fact that mankind could not travel faster than the speed of sound. And we learned through science the bumblebee can’t fly. Our current science has been showing us how to use toxic chemicals to farm our food and scientists are busy gene-splicing our vegetables with animals. The scary thing being, we can’t even begin to guess what problems this will create in the future. Finally, and last but not least, they have managed to make seeds from our food plants terminal so that they cannot be germinated.

As I read this article I had the feeling the author doesn’t want people to know too much of the truth. I can’t begin to understand why. People have died or had their lives shortened throughout history because of what they didn’t know or wouldn’t believe, just as they are today. Some of today’s perceived truths are incorrect but this will not be evident to most people until the next new science makes our current science obsolete. I don’t mean to suggest science is unworthy because of people’s folly. I’m suggesting the people who think science is the best source of answers may not be the best people to be making the decisions. Science is a process of learning and change, and science is not the truth nor is it the answer to anything by itself. We need to be careful about putting too much confidence in science; it’s a tool and we should use it as such. Human intuition is another tool we need to use even more so. To do so we must realize being part of the cosmos and being formed by the same processes as everything else, we are not separate. We must use what we know and what we feel to make decisions which are in the best interest of the whole environment, not just the human race, because without our proper environment we will not exist.

At the end of the article the author states, “Perhaps instead of ‘environmental science,’ we should just teach science.” I will not comment on this statement because for me to make what I believe to be the obvious response to it, is to do a disservice to the intelligence of anyone reading this, as well as to my own. So I will just stop here.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *